But the resistance is so great here, and "coincidence" so insisted upon that we'd better have some more instances: Aerolite in a storm at St. Leonards-on-sea, England, Sept. 17, 1885--no trace of it found (_Annual Register_, 1885); meteorite in a gale, March 1, 1886, described in the _Monthly Weather Review_, March, 1886; meteorite in a thunderstorm, off coast of Greece, Nov. 19, 1899 (_Nature_, 61-111); fall of a meteorite in a storm, July 7, 1883, near Lachine, Quebec (_Monthly Weather Review_, July, 1883); same phenomenon noted in _Nature_, 28-319; meteorite in a whirlwind, Sweden, Sept. 24, 1883 (_Nature_, 29-15). _London Roy. Soc. Proc._, 6-276: A triangular cloud that appeared in a storm, Dec. 17, 1852; a red nucleus, about half the apparent diameter of the moon, and a long tail; visible 13 minutes; explosion of the nucleus. Nevertheless, in _Science Gossip_, n.s., 6-65, it is said that, though meteorites have fallen in storms, no connection is supposed to exist between the two phenomena, except by the ignorant peasantry. But some of us peasants have gone through the _Report of the British Association_, 1852. Upon page 239, Dr. Buist, who had never heard of the Super-Sargasso Sea, says that, though it is difficult to trace connection between the phenomena, three aerolites had fallen in five months, in India, during thunderstorms, in 1851 (may have been 1852). For accounts by witnesses, see page 229 of the _Report_. Or--we are on our way to account for "thunderstones." It seems to me that, very strikingly here, is borne out the general acceptance that ours is only an intermediate existence, in which there is nothing fundamental, or nothing final to take as a positive standard to judge by. Peasants believed in meteorites. Scientists excluded meteorites. Peasants believe in "thunderstones." Scientists exclude "thunderstones." It is useless to argue that peasants are out in the fields, and that scientists are shut up in laboratories and lecture rooms. We cannot take for a real base that, as to phenomena with which they are more familiar, peasants are more likely to be right than are scientists: a host of biologic and meteorologic fallacies of peasants rises against us. I should say that our "existence" is like a bridge--except that that comparison is in static terms--but like the Brooklyn Bridge, upon which multitudes of bugs are seeking a fundamental--coming to a girder that seems firm and final--but the girder is built upon supports. A support then seems final. But it is built upon underlying structures. Nothing final can be found in all the bridge, because the bridge itself is not a final thing in itself, but is a relationship between Manhattan and Brooklyn. If our "existence" is a relationship between the Positive Absolute and the Negative Absolute, the quest for finality in it is hopeless: everything in it must be relative, if the "whole" is not a whole, but is, itself, a relation.